Tim Cook Meets EU Antitrust Chief Ahead of iPhone App Sideloading Deadline

[Shirasaki]

I'd say that isn't something to ignore, security-wise.

Yeah, applying the same rule differently would only exacerbate the risk of preferential treatment and thus create a bucket with uneven sections.

Right. Again, the logical conclusion of your argument would be for Apple to be even more restrictive in its App approval process. But now we're just going around in circles.

Being consistent at applying their rules is not the same as being “more restrictive”. For example, they apply their own rules to their own apps, rather than being the judge and player at the same time.

If this were true there'd never be breach in security.

With a ban comes with ways to circumvent the ban, otherwise there would be no human trafficking, illegal drugs trade, black market weapon trade etc. Same here, Apple locks down their system hard, somebody gonna try to break into it and do whatever they see fit. It’s only a matter of when. Not to mention Apple can bend their own rules when they see fit.

 

[1129846]

I just have to ask, do you understand how to engage with hypothetical questions and situations?

Well then I can gladly inform you that iOS hasn’t been a closed platform for over a decade. Developer certificates are sold and shared for cheap so side loading is very easily done if you have cydiaimpactor. As well as signing .IPA not available on the AppStore without the need of jailbreaking.

The fact you haven’t ever used this less than legal option doesn’t take your choice away from you of a “closed “ system. You can continue to use the AppStore exclusively even when developers and users no longer need an official Apple certification to offer their apps and to install them.

Do you not understand a metaphor/ analogy?

Are you really arguing developer certs and enterprise certs say you allow side loading?

Dev certs only make a build valid for 7 days assuming that cert does not expire during that window otherwise it is when the cert expires. Certs are valid for 1 year. Also each developer certs only can have a 100 devices registered to it and that list can only be wiped once a year.

Enterprise certs you have to get permission for and Apple has to agree your reasoning is valid. I semi regularly have to get in to debates with Apple justifying my enterprise certs. Plus enterprise certs on the day the expire or are regenerated which invalidated older certs all build made with those cert immediately stop working and have to be rebuilt and installed.

It is no close to the same thing.

 

[Shirasaki]

I'm just saying, being scared to death of whatever a government does while embracing corporations and their lust for user data and control is a weird mental gymnastics exercise. But you do you, I guess.

Maybe they trade government control over mega corps control. Still some form of control, just they favour the mega corps version over government version. I don’t see any fundamental difference tho, except maybe legal repercussions for the government control.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

I'm just saying, being scared to death of whatever a government does while embracing corporations and their lust for user data and control is a weird mental gymnastics exercise. But you do you, I guess.

I’m not scared of it, I’m just a student of history, besides google (android) was the one who said your data was their product, where as Apple views their more expensive devices as the product


Apple telling the FBI to kick rocks when asking about back doors set them apart, but yeah I don’t know any of these CEOs and I know demographics wise most are sociopaths, they only do what’s in their best interest, much like government, however wanting to sell more phones is much more “nice” than the wants of the control happy EU

 

[Samplasion]

You said...

your "preference" means I'm forced to use a locked down iOS

You're not forced to use IOS at all. Locked or unlocked. No matter your attempt to dance around language.

This is where these discussions go off the rails.

You've chosen to use IOS. Knowing it is locked. 70% of EU users of mobile phones choose to NOT use IOS.

But now we're in silly territory. Best of luck to you.

Read the quote again. I did not say "forced to use a locked down OS". I did say "forced to use a locked down iOS". In the context of the discussion you're oh so willing to ignore, that sentence means "I, as an iOS user, am forced to live without third-party apps". I hope this makes it clear that it was you trying to force words into my mouth I did not say.

 

[Samplasion]

Apple telling the FBI to kick rocks when asking about back doors [...]

And, hypothetically speaking, assuming Apple really does have users' best interests at heart, and assuming the EU is a malicious organization, they would be acting differently because...?

 

[Timo_Existencia]

...assuming Apple really does have users' best interests at heart...

See, this is where our respective philosophies dramatically part ways. To wit:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” - Adam Smith (from Scotland, by the way. Maybe that's why they left the EU?)​

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

And, hypothetically speaking, assuming Apple really does have users' best interests at heart, and assuming the EU is a malicious organization, they would be acting differently because...?

No

Apple doesn’t care about me or you, the EU doesn’t care about me or you, these entities don’t have friends they only have interests


Im more trusting of Apple as their interest is mostly just selling overpriced hardware

The EU…well

 

[Samplasion]

No

Apple doesn’t care about me or you, the EU doesn’t care about me or you, these entities don’t have friends they only have interests


Im more trusting of Apple as their interest is mostly just selling overpriced hardware

The EU…well

So we agree that Apple wouldn't implement a backdoor?

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

So we agree that Apple wouldn't implement a backdoor?

Why would they?


Apples model/interest has been pretty consistent of selling devices, if they make a back door I’m sure less likely to buy expensive iOS hardware

So what would the gov have to give, or more likely threaten, for Apple to risk making state and private actor attacks more prone on their expensive hardware?

 

[Samplasion]

Why would they?

I don't know, you brought it up. That's why I'm asking you

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

I don't know, you brought it up. That's why I'm asking you

Because the EU ether gave them enough of the proverbial carrot or the stick for it to seem like a good idea for them

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Do you not understand a metaphor/ analogy?

Here, try this metaphor/analogy on for size:

The EU, with the DMA, is simply continuing its long held practice of colonization.

In the past, when the EU would take over a country and its people, rather than honestly saying "we're here to take your resources" it would instead say "we're here to civilize you."

That same mentality is showing up here in this debate, and is present in the efforts of the EU.

Rather than just admit that what the EU is doing is bald protectionism, the EU and its supporters here are trying to argue that what they're really trying to do is to civilize the rest of us rubes, who they think are too dumb to understand what is really happening.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Read the quote again. I did not say "forced to use a locked down OS". I did say "forced to use a locked down iOS". In the context of the discussion you're oh so willing to ignore, that sentence means "I, as an iOS user, am forced to live without third-party apps". I hope this makes it clear that it was you trying to force words into my mouth I did not say.

I've read your quote clearly. None of this changes anything I've said; keep dancing.

The very premise of your argument rests on zero foundation. You're trying to make the argument such that once you've entered an establishment of business, you're then forced to buy only their products. Like, once you chose to eat at McDonalds, you're then FORCED to choose from their menu.

You were never FORCED to use IOS. You're not forced today to use IOS. 70% or more people in the EU don't use IOS. The whole foundation of your use of the term "forced" is silly.

 

[makitango]

Sure. Which means there exists plenty of alternatives in the market. The EU isn't motivated by the idea of offering "choice" to consumers.

Are you the EU and able to speak in their name? No? Then maybe don‘t try ao hard to project your opinion as a fact.

The EU, in my estimation, is trying to assert control over a market it feels it has little control over, because there are no major players in the digital realm that are headquartered in the EU. The idea that a government thinks they need to regulate a company who has less than 1/3 of the marketshare has nothing to do with competition.

The EU is regulating actions on its ground where corporations have to let go of control, so quite the opposite.

You're changing what you say from one post to the next. You said 30% isn't a large market share so the EU need to step in now you're saying it is a large share, then you say sideloading isn't a big deal but the EU must step in to mandate it?

There is plenty of customer choice and competition without EU meddling.

Nothing of that matters because the law prohibits corporations from deciding who can do how much on their platforms, enabling free competition.

Apple now censors which groups you can join on Telegram.

This is why sideloading is needed

Same as with VPN clients, or developers actually getting work done on their machines.

I mean, it really depends. For example, all apps are constrained to their own sandbox on iOS. That includes sideloaded apps. Which, I mean, would be fine. But if Apple were to arbitrarily deny "entitlements" such as "this app can send notifications", "this app can update in the background" on the basis that they're from third-party sources, then I do see the EU stepping in. Ideally they'd have the same level of access

They also already had privileged access to APIs based on whom they deem boot-kissing friendly servants.

Spotify's complaints about Apple had no relationship to their own business. 99% of Spotify's iOS subscribers were paying via the internet and not the App Store. So 99% of their subscription revenue was not subject to an App Store commission. The 1% of subscription revenue that was subject to the App Store commission was being charged at the 15% rate for recurring subscriptions.

In other words, Spotify has alway been lying about the competitive disadvantage part.

It would only be 15% when a sub continued over 12 months, and it was also only lowered to 15% after they encountered more and more legal issues. Nothing about that came from Apple on its own terms.

Why does the EU think the desktop/laptop model is more competitive when prices for hardware and software are higher and the two dominant operating systems have a 70%/20% split?

The mobile revolution was about lowering the cost of entry to computers/apps. And it achieved that.

The mobile revolution was certainly not (just) about that.

Control historically is the best answer


Being able to side load spyware is a great benefit to them

Yeeeees. Installing Slack from their website and NordVPN from theirs is spyware. Yeeeeeeeeees.
I wonder if their software was signed. Oh it was, and I can isntall it? Oh wonders never cease!

Obvious: the EU thinks the mobile market is uncompetitive when the evidence doesn't support it. Windows/Mac is not a more competitive market for consumers relative to iOS/Android despite Windows/Mac having all the qualities that the EU believes make a more competitive market. So it doesn't really add up and the EU is just ignoring that reality.

The EU followed the evidence which is why they implemented the laws, and countries outside the EU are making the same moves.

So, this argument only leads to making IOS more closed, rather than more open.

I think it was a joke.

BTW, you EU folk...I wish you'd force BMW to allow me to sideload Apple Car Play on my 1250 GSA motorcycle. They force me to use their terrible software!

Following the QA record of Apple‘s software testing, it would probably serve you better if it didn‘t.
Unrelated to that: Is your motorcycle a personal computer being sold in the EU? No? Then I guess it is out of scope but you can always ask the authorities in a faraway country if you find documentation ambiguous.

Actually, according to the way that the EU "defines" (makes up) the title of Gatekeeper, it means exactly that. The EU hasn't passed a general law to force ALL companies to operate in this way. They've only narrowly targeted a few companies specifically. So, Spotify can and does operate their platform in a completley closed manner, locking everyone out, forcing artists to only use their payment system, denying artists the ability to link to outside payment processors.

This is why all the arguments about the morality of how Apple operates are completely flat. This is simply protrectionism, and the EU going after large companies. Because they don't apply the laws universally. If you think, on principle, that all companies should be open in order to promote this so-called competition, then you'd be forcing Spotify to do the same thing.

Which, again and again, you're free to do in your country. Just stop pretending you're doing this for moral reasons and that you are in some way superior to we "Apple Fan Boys."

Ever heard of taxes and how they are tiered depending on who is the entity? Yes? I trust in the follow-up thoughts to do their math.

Well, to be fair, Apple was also competitively harming Microsoft when Window's had 90% market share and Apple had 5%. Right?

By the hatred we "fan boys" still recieved back then, I'm certain there are those who felt this was true.

I‘m pretty sure Windows had sideloading back then and is still having it today.

I have some EU supporters like Sophisticated Nut saying "all laws must be applied equally" (though he clearly doesn't believe that to be true) and you saying "the EU can apply any remedies and restrictions in any way it wants."

You're being too clever by half; Any country can pass laws of protectionism, even in markets that it doesn't compete in, with the effort to TRY to compete in those markets.

That said, you've already said that YOU believe the EU has significant players in the digital realm. And according to your argument, that would be the purpose of the EUs protectionism. To protect those that you think are signficant..

Again, the EU is just using protectionism. Nothing morally superior about it. But perfectly legal and justifiable from a self-interest perspective.

You say that as if it were a fact. We all know you‘re frustrated that you can‘t convince us of a flat Earth.

Directly? Of course not


Indirectly, so Apple can avoid being strong armed with fees or not being able to sell in some EU land, in trade for making it easier of the state sponsored spyware much easier to implement, you betcha!

I didn‘t hear you complain when Apple bowed all the way to the basement and offered a modified iOS for China with a glassdoored iCloud and zero encryption, eh?

This entire argument boils down to this:

You: have a preference.
I: have a preference.
They: have a preference.

Governments can and do enact regulations on businesses. All countries do this.

In very few instances of business regulations are there clear cut moral imperatives.

If you like what the EU is doing. Fine. If you don't like what the EU is doing. Fine.

But no side is morally "right" on these arguments.

No side is ever morally right, no? Is that how you also look at history and politics? abecause that would be some dark stuff.

I’m not scared of it, I’m just a student of history, besides google (android) was the one who said your data was their product, where as Apple views their more expensive devices as the product

I see you followed their PR doctrine.

See, this is where our respective philosophies dramatically part ways. To wit:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” - Adam Smith (from Scotland, by the way. Maybe that's why they left the EU?)​

If you think they are better off outside the economic union, you can ask the British how well they fares since then.

No

Apple doesn’t care about me or you, the EU doesn’t care about me or you, these entities don’t have friends they only have interests


Im more trusting of Apple as their interest is mostly just selling overpriced hardware

The EU…well

You don‘t get to speak for them and whom they care for. And we don‘t have to feel bad that our parliament is not such a childish carousel like the US‘ congress which also gets raided by maniacs like a World of Warcraft dungeon.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sure. Which means there exists plenty of alternatives in the market. The EU isn't motivated by the idea of offering "choice" to consumers.

Indeed, it’s fair competition and possibility of choices for all market participants( this includes consumers both as private and a business.

Subscriptions, just like on Spotify, are a large part of the complaints being levied against Apple. In fact, this is the fundamental complaint of Spotify against Apple; that Apple should allow Spotify to sidestep payments to Apple for the subscriptions it charges its customers.

Apple have a store, in that store they sell Apple Music as a standalone service, they also provide competitors such as Spotify or Amazon music to provide their apps.

but only Apple is allowed to sidestep the fees and have a competitive advantage over the others by always having them pay 15-30% more.

You're free in your own Country to not be consistent in your application of the law or the philosophy of the Law. But when the application of that law is inconsistent, benefiting one of your own companies and penalizing a foreign company, that's protectionism, plain and simple. Which, sure, is fine. But let's not dress it up in noble sounding terminology.

You say this without actually demonstrating it.

Which doesn't actually matter from a competitive standpoint since Spotify had no problem getting customers to pay for the subscription on the web. Complaining that you only got 99% of your iOS customers to avoid the commission isn't much of a complaint.

Doesn’t change the action as being anti-competitive and irrelevant to the market size.

Obvious: the EU thinks the mobile market is uncompetitive when the evidence doesn't support it. Windows/Mac is not a more competitive market for consumers relative to iOS/Android despite Windows/Mac having all the qualities that the EU believes make a more competitive market. So it doesn't really add up and the EU is just ignoring that reality.

Eu isn’t regulating the mobile market. It’s the consumer/ business market of software provided to users on large markets that gatekeepers interfere with by restricting the free market to compete on equal terms.

You mean like the EU has arbitrarily defined "gatekeeper?"

It’s not arbitrary, but applies to a company with An entrenched and durable position IF these two criteria are met

1. A size that impacts the internal market
   • this is presumed to be the case if the company achieves an annual turnover in the European Economic Area (EEA) equal to or above €7.5 billion in in each of the last three financial years
2. The control of an important gateway for business users towards final consumers
   • this is presumed to be the case if the company operates a core platform service with more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the EU and more than 10,000 yearly active business users

And this is simply the ex-anti implementation of this law

• Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position on a particular market

What is an abuse of dominance?​

its assessment of dominance, including the ease with which other companies can enter the market – whether there are any barriers to this:

• the existence of countervailing buyer power;
• the overall size and strength of the company and
• its resources and the extent to which it is present at several levels of the supply chain (vertical integration).

Holding a dominant position on any given market is not in itself illegal. However, a dominant company has a special responsibility to ensure that its conduct does not distort competition. ​

Examples of behaviour that may amount to an abuse include:​

• (Exclusive purchasing); requiring buyers to purchase all units of a particular product only from the dominant company ​

• (Predation or predatory pricing); setting prices at a loss-making level and refusing to supply input indispensable for competition in an ancillary market, and charging excessive prices.​

No, can you teach me?

I hope you’re sarcastic. Because my question was sincere considering how you didn’t engage with it

Then no sideloading needed, right? If it's cheap and easy to do, what's the complaint?

It is side loading just implemented with anti competitive clauses to market participants. They are contractually obligated not to provide the software outside the AppStore. And can only be done if “accidentally” people get hold of these enterprise certificates.

Again, I have a preference, you have a preference. You're trying to convince me here that my preference isn't real, but yours is. So much for my sense of "choice." You're saying, "you're free to choose, so long as you choose what I prefer." That's very consistent with taking "choice" out of a marketplace and placing it into the hands of the government.

You haven’t demonstrated that your choice ever is threatened or removed.

And I didn’t say it’s my preference, it’s about developers having the choice to sell to iOS users without being forced to use the AppStore.

what it seems your issue is:
Developers using 3rd party stores & potentially leaving the AppStore= impacting your choice of apps.

I just don't think your "logic" achieves what you think it does. And you don't think mine does. As evidenced by this statement:

Apparently I don't if the idea of metaphor/analogy only leads to your conclusion and not mine.

Perhaps you could teach me all about metaphor and analogy.

A metaphor is a figure of speech that uses one thing to mean another and makes a comparison between the two.
An analogy is comparable to a metaphor and simile in that it shows how two different things are similar, but it’s a bit more complex.

Rather than a figure of speech, an analogy is more of a logical argument. The structure of the argument leads to a new understanding.

It’s not my argument or logic.

That is like asking a brain surgeon to go heart surgery. It is just surgery. They could choose to do it. Not the same thing. It is a specialized skill set.

Huh? I don't understand at all what this has to do with sideloading and 3rd Party App stores. But hey, you are free to choose an open or a closed platform, and learn to code for that which you prefer. Or, you could learn both, neither of which is remotely as difficult as becoming a surgeon.

BTW, you EU folk...I wish you'd force BMW to allow me to sideload Apple Car Play on my 1250 GSA motorcycle. They force me to use their terrible software!

You can…

Actually, according to the way that the EU "defines" (makes up) the title of Gatekeeper, it means exactly that. The EU hasn't passed a general law to force ALL companies to operate in this way. They've only narrowly targeted a few companies specifically. So, Spotify can and does operate their platform in a completley closed manner, locking everyone out, forcing artists to only use their payment system, denying artists the ability to link to outside payment processors.

If I would use the American equivalent so you might understand. These regulations targets monopolies( eu don’t have a legal definition of monopoly) and it’s know as having a dominant position and abusing it. This is decades old laws.

This is why all the arguments about the morality of how Apple operates are completely flat. This is simply protrectionism, and the EU going after large companies. Because they don't apply the laws universally. If you think, on principle, that all companies should be open in order to promote this so-called competition, then you'd be forcing Spotify to do the same thing.

Which, again and again, you're free to do in your country. Just stop pretending you're doing this for moral reasons and that you are in some way superior to we "Apple Fan Boys."

Again Spotify doesn’t have a payment system, you can’t sell anything on their platform. And Spotify is completely open for anyone to provide their music for anyone to listen.

And I have never said anything about morals.

Lots of governments subsidize lots of different business practices. For example, the USA gives tax benefits to renewable energy products. As do EU member countries, as I understand it. There's no reason that the EU couldn't choose to subsidize/incentivize development of an alternate OS. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this argument.

Well EU as a super national entity can’t do that.. and I’m still asking why would EU do that? Android and iOS aren’t considered competitors at all in EU. Samsung phones, Google phones, Motorola phones, Apple phones etc are competing against each other.

You misunderstand me. I'm fine with the way Spotify operates their platform. I'm merely showing the inconsistency in the arguments being made. Again, the EU is practicing protectionism; they're not enforcing some univerally moral way of operating, which seems to be the argument most EU supporters want to make. "Apple MUST allow sideloading because it's the only MORAL way to operate!" That's nonsense. As is shown by the different standard that is being applied to Spotify.

I didn’t misunderstand you, I’m talking strictly about the iOS as a platform.

It’s not moral, but objectively considered the best for a healthy and competitive market to uphold the founding charters of EU.

Perhaps because you're misunderstanding and mischaracterizing my position?

Am I? Freedom of the software market to engage In trade with willing iOS user without permission from Apple?

And Spotify doesn't even allow Apple to compete on their platform. So, Apple allows competition within their platform, and Spotify doesn't. And you've concluded that Apple is wrong and Spotify is justified.

What platform would that be? Does Apple produce music and podcasts that Spotify have prevented from being hosted with them?

But we've just shown you don't actually believe that. Because Spotify is allowed to run a closed system. But again, I'm FINE with Spotify operating that way; and it clearly hasn't harmed their ability to compete since they dominate the market.

Just say "The EU is practicising protectionism, which is our right" and you and I have no argument. But this silly "The EU is morally superior to everyone else" is just so much pearl clutching.

What are Spotify preferecing?
The AppStore is dominating the market on iOS, and abusing their market dominance to get favorable advantages against their competing services.

I have some EU supporters like Sophisticated Nut saying "all laws must be applied equally" (though he clearly doesn't believe that to be true) and you saying "the EU can apply any remedies and restrictions in any way it wants."

You're being too clever by half; Any country can pass laws of protectionism, even in markets that it doesn't compete in, with the effort to TRY to compete in those markets.

That said, you've already said that YOU believe the EU has significant players in the digital realm. And according to your argument, that would be the purpose of the EUs protectionism. To protect those that you think are signficant..

Again, the EU is just using protectionism. Nothing morally superior about it. But perfectly legal and justifiable from a self-interest perspective.

What is protectionism?​

Protectionism is an economic policy where a country imposes restrictions like tariffs, quotas, and subsidies to shield its domestic industries from foreign competition. It's like putting up walls around the local market, with the goal of supporting local businesses, preserving jobs, and promoting economic stability.

Something the DMA doesn’t provide.

And anti competitive laws have objective criteria’s that are valid for everyone, the smallest company that was ruled abusing their market was a EU pharmaceutical company with barely 5% of the market.

 

[DownUnderDan]

Its simple result, who has the more power/money will win

I think you are confusing the EU with the US election cycle.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Are you really arguing developer certs and enterprise certs say you allow side loading?

Dev certs only make a build valid for 7 days assuming that cert does not expire during that window otherwise it is when the cert expires. Certs are valid for 1 year. Also each developer certs only can have a 100 devices registered to it and that list can only be wiped once a year.

Enterprise certs you have to get permission for and Apple has to agree your reasoning is valid. I semi regularly have to get in to debates with Apple justifying my enterprise certs. Plus enterprise certs on the day the expire or are regenerated which invalidated older certs all build made with those cert immediately stop working and have to be rebuilt and installed.

It is no close to the same thing.

It is by bypassing the AppStore, but with restrictions making it untenable to use.

What Apple would need to do is allow the enterprise certificates to be used outside the store and no longer have a 7 day limit on the developer certificate.

I regularly purchase the right to use enterprise certificates so I can side load applications not allowed in the store.

https://appdb.to/my/p2p-certificates

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Indeed, it’s fair competition and possibility of choices for all market participants( this includes consumers both as private and a business.

Apple have a store, in that store they sell Apple Music as a standalone service, they also provide competitors such as Spotify or Amazon music to provide their apps.

but only Apple is allowed to sidestep the fees and have a competitive advantage over the others by always having them pay 15-30% more.

You say this without actually demonstrating it.

Doesn’t change the action as being anti-competitive and irrelevant to the market size.

Eu isn’t regulating the mobile market. It’s the consumer/ business market of software provided to users on large markets that gatekeepers interfere with by restricting the free market to compete on equal terms.

It’s not arbitrary, but applies to a company with An entrenched and durable position IF these two criteria are met

1. A size that impacts the internal market
   • this is presumed to be the case if the company achieves an annual turnover in the European Economic Area (EEA) equal to or above €7.5 billion in in each of the last three financial years
2. The control of an important gateway for business users towards final consumers
   • this is presumed to be the case if the company operates a core platform service with more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the EU and more than 10,000 yearly active business users

And this is simply the ex-anti implementation of this law

• Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position on a particular market

What is an abuse of dominance?​

its assessment of dominance, including the ease with which other companies can enter the market – whether there are any barriers to this:

• the existence of countervailing buyer power;
• the overall size and strength of the company and
• its resources and the extent to which it is present at several levels of the supply chain (vertical integration).

Holding a dominant position on any given market is not in itself illegal. However, a dominant company has a special responsibility to ensure that its conduct does not distort competition. ​

Examples of behaviour that may amount to an abuse include:​

• (Exclusive purchasing); requiring buyers to purchase all units of a particular product only from the dominant company ​

• (Predation or predatory pricing); setting prices at a loss-making level and refusing to supply input indispensable for competition in an ancillary market, and charging excessive prices.​

I hope you’re sarcastic. Because my question was sincere considering how you didn’t engage with it

It is side loading just implemented with anti competitive clauses to market participants. They are contractually obligated not to provide the software outside the AppStore. And can only be done if “accidentally” people get hold of these enterprise certificates.

You haven’t demonstrated that your choice ever is threatened or removed.

And I didn’t say it’s my preference, it’s about developers having the choice to sell to iOS users without being forced to use the AppStore.

what it seems your issue is:
Developers using 3rd party stores & potentially leaving the AppStore= impacting your choice of apps.

A metaphor is a figure of speech that uses one thing to mean another and makes a comparison between the two.
An analogy is comparable to a metaphor and simile in that it shows how two different things are similar, but it’s a bit more complex.

Rather than a figure of speech, an analogy is more of a logical argument. The structure of the argument leads to a new understanding.

It’s not my argument or logic.




You can…

If I would use the American equivalent so you might understand. These regulations targets monopolies( eu don’t have a legal definition of monopoly) and it’s know as having a dominant position and abusing it. This is decades old laws.

Again Spotify doesn’t have a payment system, you can’t sell anything on their platform. And Spotify is completely open for anyone to provide their music for anyone to listen.

And I have never said anything about morals.

Well EU as a super national entity can’t do that.. and I’m still asking why would EU do that? Android and iOS aren’t considered competitors at all in EU. Samsung phones, Google phones, Motorola phones, Apple phones etc are competing against each other.



I didn’t misunderstand you, I’m talking strictly about the iOS as a platform.

It’s not moral, but objectively considered the best for a healthy and competitive market to uphold the founding charters of EU.

Am I? Freedom of the software market to engage In trade with willing iOS user without permission from Apple?

What platform would that be? Does Apple produce music and podcasts that Spotify have prevented from being hosted with them?

What are Spotify preferecing?
The AppStore is dominating the market on iOS, and abusing their market dominance to get favorable advantages against their competing services.

What is protectionism?​

Protectionism is an economic policy where a country imposes restrictions like tariffs, quotas, and subsidies to shield its domestic industries from foreign competition. It's like putting up walls around the local market, with the goal of supporting local businesses, preserving jobs, and promoting economic stability.

Something the DMA doesn’t provide.

And anti competitive laws have objective criteria’s that are valid for everyone, the smallest company that was ruled abusing their market was a EU pharmaceutical company with barely 5% of the market.

I don't think you get the depth to which you've defined your own criteria and then are arguing that your arguments fit that criteria; it's circular. Without acknowledging that those criteria are subjective, not objective.

It's like you think you're going to convince me that you're right by brute force. You won't. Because your criteria, the criteria of the EU, the criteria of the DMA are all subjective in nature. And over and over and over again, I've conceded you're within your rights to determine which criteria you want to use. But you seem impassioned to try to convince me that you're objectively right. You keep quoting laws and seeming "facts" as though those are things that are in question, and that if I just conceded your facts, that you'd win me over. I concede: the EU has encoded its subjective preferences into law. That doesn't make them objectively true or right or moral or good.

I'm not saying I am objectively right. I'm not saying Apple is objectively right. Because I don't believe within the realm of this dicussion there is much of anything that is objective.

Again, you have a preference that you've dressed in fancy language and legal terms. Look, I've worked in politics and drafted laws and legislation for the vast majority of my professional career. I understand that the laws I've written and have had passed into legally binding code are not objective facts. They are subjective opinions which then become enforceable by force.

If there is anything I'd define as nearer to objective than subjective, it's the point at which one encodes their preference into a binding law that is enforceable by force. Only one of us is using such a force to encode our preference into binding law.

So, let's end the back and forth. You like what you like. I don't like what you like. That's the nature of human relations. You just now have courts and police to enforce your preference.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

Are you the EU and able to speak in their name? No? Then maybe don‘t try ao hard to project your opinion as a fact.

The EU is regulating actions on its ground where corporations have to let go of control, so quite the opposite.

Nothing of that matters because the law prohibits corporations from deciding who can do how much on their platforms, enabling free competition.

Same as with VPN clients, or developers actually getting work done on their machines.

They also already had privileged access to APIs based on whom they deem boot-kissing friendly servants.

It would only be 15% when a sub continued over 12 months, and it was also only lowered to 15% after they encountered more and more legal issues. Nothing about that came from Apple on its own terms.

The mobile revolution was certainly not (just) about that.

Yeeeees. Installing Slack from their website and NordVPN from theirs is spyware. Yeeeeeeeeees.
I wonder if their software was signed. Oh it was, and I can isntall it? Oh wonders never cease!

The EU followed the evidence which is why they implemented the laws, and countries outside the EU are making the same moves.

I think it was a joke.

Following the QA record of Apple‘s software testing, it would probably serve you better if it didn‘t.
Unrelated to that: Is your motorcycle a personal computer being sold in the EU? No? Then I guess it is out of scope but you can always ask the authorities in a faraway country if you find documentation ambiguous.

Ever heard of taxes and how they are tiered depending on who is the entity? Yes? I trust in the follow-up thoughts to do their math.

I‘m pretty sure Windows had sideloading back then and is still having it today.

You say that as if it were a fact. We all know you‘re frustrated that you can‘t convince us of a flat Earth.

I didn‘t hear you complain when Apple bowed all the way to the basement and offered a modified iOS for China with a glassdoored iCloud and zero encryption, eh?

No side is ever morally right, no? Is that how you also look at history and politics? abecause that would be some dark stuff.


I see you followed their PR doctrine.

If you think they are better off outside the economic union, you can ask the British how well they fares since then.

You don‘t get to speak for them and whom they care for. And we don‘t have to feel bad that our parliament is not such a childish carousel like the US‘ congress which also gets raided by maniacs like a World of Warcraft dungeon.

NordVPN is spyware? Tell me more

Well if you didn’t hear it, yeah I have a issue with anyone who a accommodates bad regimes

Yes I do get to speak for them, I own Apple stock, they have a legal duty to their share holders (profit) not their customers


Personally I don’t care about anyone’s PR, I don’t even watch commercials and when I buy something I normally tell the sales guy he has a better chance of a sale if he says less to me

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And we aren’t disagreeing on the right thing to do. You care for the rights of the company, and the right of your choice to be protected, as well as consumer harm being prevented.

EU don’t care specifically about consumer harm, they are for a well functioning internal market for all market participants. That includes everyone who engages in it.

EU have an issue how gatekeepers (standing in the way to a large market as a curator)
Apple prevents iOS developers to compete on fair terms with the same services on users hardware. They perceive the AppStore as limiting the market potential without justification.

Example competitive web browsers can’t compete with safari.
They don’t care about the OS market as it’s completely fine. Android and iOS are two separate markets.

And if someone takes 100% of the market it will be completely fine as long as no abusive practices was used.

But for you, android and iOS are acceptable alternatives and the same market.

I don't think you get the depth to which you've defined your own criteria and then are arguing that your arguments fit that criteria; it's circular. Without acknowledging that those criteria a subjective, not objective.

It's like you think you're going to convince me that you're right by brute force. You won't. Because your criteria, the criteria of the EU, the criteria of the DMA are all subjective in nature. And over and over and over again, I've conceded you're within your rights to determine which criteria you want to use. But you seem impassioned to try to convince me that you're objectively right. You keep quoting laws and seeming "facts" as though those are things that are in question, and that if I just conceded your facts, that you'd win me over. I concede: the EU has encoded its subjective preferences into law. That doesn't make them objectively true or right or moral or good.

I'm not saying I am objectively right. I'm not saying Apple is objectively right. Because I don't believe within the realm of this dicussion there is much of anything that is objective.

Again, you have a preference that you've dressed in fancy language and legal terms. Look, I've worked in politics and drafted laws and legislation for the vast majority of my professional career. I understand that the laws I've written and have had passed into legally binding code are not objective facts. They are subjective opinions which then become enforceable by force.

So, let's end the back and forth. You like what you like. I don't like what you like. That's the nature of human relations.

You’re mistaken, what the EU charter requires is completely subjective, just how the wavelength we use to draw the lines between different colors are completely arbitrary, the criteria’s on the other hand is objective in nature.
And when you have specific set of subjective goals established you can identify objective criteria’s and methods to work towards that.

Something being objective doesn’t make it good, moral or superior.

Eu law is codified to prevent any kind of interpretation except the explicit goal of the text. And it’s not political figures who write the legislation, but technical experts according to political guidelines.

EU and Us legal philosophy and understanding is completely different.
Here you can read upon it without making baseless claims.

The Digital market Act
DMA impact assessment

open public consultation digital services act

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Yall think big gov is cares about “the customers” and that’s why they want to be able to side load software into iOS??

El o el

You are very naive if you think the governments are waiting for this kind of legislation.

No comments from Apple about this yet...

4-year campaign backdoored iPhones using possibly the most advanced exploit ever

“Triangulation” infected dozens of iPhones belonging to employees of Moscow-based Kaspersky.

arstechnica.com

 

[Sophisticatednut]

NordVPN is spyware? Tell me more

Well if you didn’t hear it, yeah I have a issue with anyone who a accommodates bad regimes

Yes I do get to speak for them, I own Apple stock, they have a legal duty to their share holders (profit) not their customers


Personally I don’t care about anyone’s PR, I don’t even watch commercials and when I buy something I normally tell the sales guy he has a better chance of a sale if he says less to me

Well lucky for us that EU legally obligates companies such as Apple have a legal duty to their consumers, undertakers and the market they participate in.

Share holders aren’t the only ones who’s interested are important.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

the criteria’s on the other hand is objective in nature.

I understand that you believe that to be true.

I wish you well.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

Well lucky for us that EU legally obligates companies such as Apple have a legal duty to their consumers, undertakers and the market they participate in.

Share holders aren’t the only ones who’s interested are important.

Im not really into that, just historically when the state gets too much power it has never worked out well.



Soooo again with how is nordvpn spyware?

Not many spyware companies have independent audits and a Canary letter

Looking at big gov, like the EU, and big corps, it’s like picking between gas station sushi or the hot dog that’s got over 100 miles clocked on that roller heater thing